Why does the bard eclipse the rogue?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 549 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

In that case the aswer is no. None class can "eclipse" others


The Crusader wrote:
I can discount as irrelevant skills like knowledges that I personally find to be unimportant, and never accept that the totality of my character must be measured in a setting/equipment neutral environment.

I'll respond to the part that is actually relevant and in response to what I have said.

Knowledges fall into the "and more" category.

I don't play games without gear, races, stats, and 3/4 of the rules. So any comparison without those is worthless. You and I have very different definitions of setting neutral. I don't believe setting neutral is a game where everyone plays as naked grey blobs with fixed attributes in every stat. Such comparisons show a complete lack in understanding of actual game mechanics. It's ridiculous and any advocates for such a comparison do not understand the game at it's most fundamental level.


Scavion wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
The Crusader wrote:
But, a group with a rogue is weaker than a group without one....
Analyzing that claim is outside the scope of this thread.

Folks be needing to stay on thread topic. This is isn't a Rogues suck and this is why thread. This is a "Can the Bard eclipse that which is the Rogue in it's entirety?"

So obviously what does a Rogue bring to the party? The short answer is trapfinding, situational damage and skills. One unfortunate matter is that point buy and realistic leveling is extremely harmful to the Rogue. A Dex build doesn't come online till high levels where you can afford an agile weapon. Till then you are fairly useless in combat from 3-6. The Strength build is annoying from a thematic view. The intelligence build is pretty useless all around since skills don't pay the bills! An all arounder is pretty mediocre compared to others who can consolidate their stats more. Charisma, a classical stat for Rogues must remain a 10 if we wish to be useful.

We can pin down some of his skills. This leaves 3 skill points a level, 4 if you're a 13 Int Rogue for Bluffing. Only two of these skills so far serve as a gate opener(One literally).

Acrobatics
Bluff
Perception
Disable Device
Stealth

Scavion let's do this at another time. This thread has served it's purpose. Let's save the rest of the debate for later when I have a positive argument for the rogue.

There is no need to waste anymore of your time.


o.O


Marthkus wrote:
The Crusader wrote:
I can discount as irrelevant skills like knowledges that I personally find to be unimportant, and never accept that the totality of my character must be measured in a setting/equipment neutral environment.

I'll respond to the part that is actually relevant and in response to what I have said.

Knowledges fall into the "and more" category.

I don't play games without gear, races, stats, and 3/4 of the rules. So any comparison without those is worthless. You and I have very different definitions of setting neutral. I don't believe setting neutral is a game where everyone plays as naked grey blobs with fixed attributes in every stat. Such comparisons show a complete lack in understanding of actual game mechanics. It's ridiculous and any advocates for such a comparison do not understand the game at it's most fundamental level.

Which is just another way of saying, "All I have to do is put up a 26 Str, 3 Int, 3 Cha Rogue. It doesn't matter that he can't do the things you might want a Rogue for, because he'll outdamage your Bard. Therefore, objectively, based on my absurd criteria, Rogue is better."


The Crusader wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
The Crusader wrote:
I can discount as irrelevant skills like knowledges that I personally find to be unimportant, and never accept that the totality of my character must be measured in a setting/equipment neutral environment.

I'll respond to the part that is actually relevant and in response to what I have said.

Knowledges fall into the "and more" category.

I don't play games without gear, races, stats, and 3/4 of the rules. So any comparison without those is worthless. You and I have very different definitions of setting neutral. I don't believe setting neutral is a game where everyone plays as naked grey blobs with fixed attributes in every stat. Such comparisons show a complete lack in understanding of actual game mechanics. It's ridiculous and any advocates for such a comparison do not understand the game at it's most fundamental level.

Which is just another way of saying, "All I have to do is put up a 26 Str, 3 Int, 3 Cha Rogue. It doesn't matter that he can't do the things you might want a Rogue for, because he'll outdamage your Bard. Therefore, objectively, based on my absurd criteria, Rogue is better."

I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume he meant it as that. When Marthkus considers classes he considers how they play in a real campaign.

Real concerns for a Rogue include Pointbuy hamstringing his options and thematic representation. If you knew him, Marthkus absolutely despises the thought of the full-plate STR rogue.


Open another thread with only builds and how to play. I wont say that rogue haven't problems but all this thread of Rogues,monks and fighters be undearpowered for me is exaggeration


For those of you looking for comparisons against a fixed set of criteria there is a thread for that. I have picked up the level 10 sanctified rogue from the last big bun fight thread and seen how he does against the various challenges. Feel free to post your own builds and see how you do.


Scavion wrote:
The Crusader wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
The Crusader wrote:
I can discount as irrelevant skills like knowledges that I personally find to be unimportant, and never accept that the totality of my character must be measured in a setting/equipment neutral environment.

I'll respond to the part that is actually relevant and in response to what I have said.

Knowledges fall into the "and more" category.

I don't play games without gear, races, stats, and 3/4 of the rules. So any comparison without those is worthless. You and I have very different definitions of setting neutral. I don't believe setting neutral is a game where everyone plays as naked grey blobs with fixed attributes in every stat. Such comparisons show a complete lack in understanding of actual game mechanics. It's ridiculous and any advocates for such a comparison do not understand the game at it's most fundamental level.

Which is just another way of saying, "All I have to do is put up a 26 Str, 3 Int, 3 Cha Rogue. It doesn't matter that he can't do the things you might want a Rogue for, because he'll outdamage your Bard. Therefore, objectively, based on my absurd criteria, Rogue is better."

I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume he meant it as that. When Marthkus considers classes he considers how they play in a real campaign.

Real concerns for a Rogue include Pointbuy hamstringing his options and thematic representation. If you knew him, Marthkus absolutely despises the thought of the full-plate STR rogue.

Irrelevant. When any class can do 3 of 4 things better than the rogue, it is absurd to say that they are objectively stronger because they might situationally do 1 of 4 better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
We've established that the bard does not eclipse the rogue.

Part of the reason why you're facing some contention here is because you're using an unorthodox definition of "eclipse". For instance, I took eclipse in this context to mean the following:

Eclipse - to make less outstanding or important by comparison; surpass: a soprano whose singing eclipsed that of her rivals.

Take a bard and a rogue, and place them in the same party. Assuming equal optimization, it's hard to argue that the the bard will not eclipse, surpass, or "outshine" the rogue in that sense of the word.

If I'm understanding you correctly, a better phrasing might be: "the bard does not encompass every aspect of being a rogue as well as a rogue", which is true.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Marthkus is using "eclipse" in the solar body sense. Ie when the moon eclipses the sun, then the sun is completely covered.

What is interesting is that we all know that the moon isn't bigger than the sun it just appears that way from our perspective. Marthkus is trying to say "the Bard doesn't eclipse the Rogue because it isn't as big in places like X, Y, and Z." Which doesn't matter, all the matters is that from a player perspective the Bard steps in front of the Rogue and you can't see the Rogue anymore.


The Crusader wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

I'll respond to the part that is actually relevant and in response to what I have said.

Knowledges fall into the "and more" category.

I don't play games without gear, races, stats, and 3/4 of the rules. So any comparison without those is worthless. You and I have very different definitions of setting neutral. I don't believe setting neutral is a game where everyone plays as naked grey blobs with fixed attributes in every stat. Such comparisons show a complete lack in understanding of actual game mechanics. It's ridiculous and any advocates for such a comparison do not understand the game at it's most fundamental level.

Irrelevant. When any class can do 3 of 4 things better than the rogue, it is absurd to say that they are objectively stronger because they might situationally do 1 of 4 better.

You're putting words in his mouth. You are arguing with yourself.

He said that he doesn't play without gear, races or stats. To compare JUST the classes on their abilities is an incomplete comparison.

And this thread is done. He said as much. His purpose for opening the thread was seeing how the Bard might "eclipse" the Rogue in duty.

The only thing left is seeing how the Bard might not. Personally I believe that whatever mechanical benefit the Rogue might be able to get over the Bard isn't worth 6/9ths spellcasting.


The mechanical benefit the Rogue gets over the Bard isn't worth Jack of All Trades.


Actually my last post was in response to your statement. Simply misquoting it by removing the post I was responding to doesn't make your argument stronger. In fact it shows the extreme weakness of your position.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Crusader wrote:
Actually my last post was in response to your statement. Simply misquoting it by removing the post I was responding to doesn't make your argument stronger. In fact it shows the extreme weakness of your position.

Uh. Mate, you honestly lost me now. I simply stated some hurtles the Rogue has to get over to make a good character.

I wasn't trying to create a position.

My position is the Bard or Alchemist make more effective characters while doing the same thing. I can play Cunning "Rogue" as an Alchemist or Dashing "Rogue" as a Bard. These guys make far better use of the allocation of stats they have.

Honestly I don't think it's healthy for you to be this argumentative.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Scavion wrote:

***

My position is the Bard or Alchemist make more effective characters while doing the same thing. I can play Cunning "Rogue" as an Alchemist or Dashing "Rogue" as a Bard. These guys make far better use of the allocation of stats they have.

***

I agree with this 100%, and doubly so with the Investigator advanced class coming out. Between the three there's just not many character concepts I would want to use a Rogue for that another class couldn't accomodate better.


Ssalarn wrote:
Scavion wrote:

***

My position is the Bard or Alchemist make more effective characters while doing the same thing. I can play Cunning "Rogue" as an Alchemist or Dashing "Rogue" as a Bard. These guys make far better use of the allocation of stats they have.

***

I agree with this 100%, and doubly so with the Investigator advanced class coming out. Between the three there's just not many character concepts I would want to use a Rogue for that another class couldn't accomodate better.

And Assassin will be firmly in the Slayer's payroll. And Ninja's for that matter but Slayer is cool for the more mundane assassin.


I kinda admire Marthkus in the sense that I can really only blame Marthkus for the first time anyone posts in a Marthkus thread

after that
it is basically getting well into fool you twice territory

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Scavion wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Scavion wrote:

***

My position is the Bard or Alchemist make more effective characters while doing the same thing. I can play Cunning "Rogue" as an Alchemist or Dashing "Rogue" as a Bard. These guys make far better use of the allocation of stats they have.

***

I agree with this 100%, and doubly so with the Investigator advanced class coming out. Between the three there's just not many character concepts I would want to use a Rogue for that another class couldn't accomodate better.
And Assassin will be firmly in the Slayer's payroll. And Ninja's for that matter but Slayer is cool for the more mundane assassin.

Yeah, they kind of cut a lot of the thematic territory you might have expected the Rogue to occupy away and distributed it out pretty thoroughly. Even without considering archetypes most of what he can bring to the table is a pretty tertiary concern.

No Rogue? Just let the Barbarian go first :)
He does get up to Trap Sense +6 for some reason.

The Rogue's best schtick was already a little on the weak side before they started giving it out to everybody else.

Still, it can be fun to play if you want go "hard mode". We're doing a special birthday adventure for a friend where her character is a trox Rogue with a huge vicious bastard sword (she always plays the sneaky types, but there's a running joke about how she wouldn't know what to do with a character who's more than 3 feet tall). Is it the most mechanically optimized character? Not really. Is she going to have a blast when she gets roll 3d8+12+5d6+2d6? Absolutely, that's a big ol' handful of dice! Even if the Bard is mathematically better in pretty much every way, throwing those fistfuls of dice down has a certain homey charm to it.


Scavion wrote:
Real concerns for a Rogue include Pointbuy hamstringing his options and thematic representation. If you knew him, Marthkus absolutely despises the thought of the full-plate STR rogue.

What's wrong with full-plate wearing STR rogues? I like them!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Maerimydra wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Real concerns for a Rogue include Pointbuy hamstringing his options and thematic representation. If you knew him, Marthkus absolutely despises the thought of the full-plate STR rogue.
What's wrong with full-plate wearing STR rogues? I like them!

I can say with perfect certainty that it wasn't the thematic representation Paizo was going for. The fact it's one of the only functionally effective ways to make a Rogue work is an incredible failing.


Scavion wrote:
Maerimydra wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Real concerns for a Rogue include Pointbuy hamstringing his options and thematic representation. If you knew him, Marthkus absolutely despises the thought of the full-plate STR rogue.
What's wrong with full-plate wearing STR rogues? I like them!
I can say with perfect certainty that it wasn't the thematic representation Paizo was going for. The fact it's one of the only functionally effective ways to make a Rogue work is an incredible failing.

I agree. The fact that it "can work" is not a failing per se, but the fact that it's one of the few way to build a viable rogue is indeed a failing.


Lamontius wrote:

I kinda admire Marthkus in the sense that I can really only blame Marthkus for the first time anyone posts in a Marthkus thread

after that
it is basically getting well into fool you twice territory

Have to agree. His particular brand of self-confessed trolling is fairly consistent, and has been for a long time. He'll stake out a ridiculously vague position, offer meaninglessly vague defenses, then admit that he's actually trolling.


A bard doesn't get Sneak Attack. So not sure why this thread was even created if part of the criteria was that they needed to "do everything the Rogue does".

If we pull back from that a bit and says "Situational Damage", then Inspire Courage (or Archaeologist's Luck, or whatever) + buff/damage spells.

If we say "8 skillpoints per level", then there's no point starting this thread. If we say "a series of solutions, such as movement or troubleshooting or knowledge", then we look at the Bard's 6 skills, knowledge, versatile performance, jack of all trades, + utility spells.

If we say "Rogue Talents", then there's no point to starting this thread (even Archaeologist only gets a few). If we say "boosts to combat and utility", then we can look at the bard's performances + various spells.

.

Either there was no point to even starting this thread, since exact copies of Rogue benefits aren't covered by Bard; or there's still contention on whether the Bard can cover every "thing" a Rogue can do.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

He's playing Schroedingers' Bard against Schroedinger's Rogue. There is no argument or solution.

Covering it up with bland and uninformative obfuscation just seems to be his style.

==Aelryinth

Shadow Lodge

Rogue Assumptions:
For the analysis I am posting here, I will assume that rogues are thematically
  • Good with sneaking around, stealing things, and evading danger
  • Cunning, Dextrous, and able to survive on the street
  • Good at talking people into doing what they want and knowing "the word on the street"
  • Jacks of all Trades
Rogue Build Outline:
Focused-Study Human Rogue
Stats:
Str14
Dex16
Con14
Int14
Wis10
Cha10

Feats:
1:Weapon Finesse
1:Skill Focus[Acrobatics]
3:Shadow Strike
5:Arcane Strike
7+:???

Talents:
2Trap Spotter
4Minor Magic[Prestidigitation]
6Major Magic[Vanish]
8+???

Skills all maxed, with FCB to skills:
Acrobatics
Perception
Disable Device
Knowledge Local
Stealth
Bluff
Diplomacy
Use Magic Device
Sense Motive
Slight of Hand
Escape Artist or Linguistics

Traits:
Student of Philosophy

Bard Build Outline:
Human Focused-Study Bard
Stats:
Str14
Dex16
Con14
Int10
Wis10
Cha14

Feats:
1:Weapon Finesse
1:Skill Focus[Bluff]
3:Arcane Strike
5:Lingering Performance
7+:???

Spells Needed/Wanted:
1:Cure Light Wounds
1:Disguise Self
2:Invisibility
2:Aram Zey's Spell Focus
2:Mirror Image
2:Pageant of the Peacock
3:Haste
3:Glibness
3:Displacement
4:Greater Invisibility
Rest:???

Skills***:
Perception*
Disable Device*
Bluff*
Stealth*
Use magic Device*
Slight of Hand*
Knowledge Local**
Perform[Oratory]**
Perform[Dance]*

*Maxed Skill
**1 point in Local for Class Skill Bonus, then maxed Oratory
***FCB to skills

Versatile Performances:
2:Oratory
6:Dance
Rest:???

Traits:
Vagabond Child

Analysis:
So, after providing data, I would say that from level 4 on the bard is pretty much flat-out better from a mechanics view. The bard will be spending 1 or 2 rounds of combat doing things like Haste and Inspire Courage, and such, or self-buffing with things like Mirror Image for Defense or Greater Invisibility. The rogue will probably spend a round or two positioning to flank or using potions/wands to buff himself up as well.

From an out-of-combat standpoint, the Rogue probably surpasses him as a thief until level 4, at which point he can turn invisible, walk in, steal, and walk out, along with being able to use scrolls of Aram Zey's Spell Focus to cover all types of traps with bonuses, and if he gets caught, he should have a pretty large bluff bonus, a decent diplomacy via Oratory, and if nothing else, the ability to [beforehand] make himself look different so nobody can ID him. He is lower at acrobatics until level 6, but at that point through spells, performances, and other cool bard stuff, he is far ahead of rogues.

As the "Face", the rogue is fairly average, having the same effective Charisma as the bard, but with less uses of it. The bard on the other hand, has one skill to cover both Diplomacy and Sense Motive, which are both important in social situations, and has Bluff as a higher skill total than the rogue will.

Then for the "Live on and Know the Streets" aspect, the Rogue has the skills to do this, and can probably take talents to improve him, but the Bard has better knowledge in general,, and is better at haggling down prices of things such as at local markets and inns and such, and can actually earn money via Perform IIRC.

For the "Jack of All Trades aspect, the rogue will probably take Skill Mastery and be able to take 10 on some skills all the time, while the Bard will be able to take 10 on all skills he has ranks in all the time from 5 and can take 20 a few times a day, ensuring more reliable results.

Here is my analysis on the Rogue v. the Bard, using two build outlines I posted myself and set goalposts, so they don't get moved around. What does everyone think?


Pretty much what my conclusion is EvilPaladin. The Rogue falls behind fast after level 4.


its not that a bard can do everything the rogue can but better. it is that a bard can contribute a lot of the stuff a rogue can similarly well and can contribute spells and performance on top of that.

Situational Damage? let me dance while i fire my bow. my superior accuracy and attack range more than makes up for a situational damage bonus that requires an ally to function, oh wait, i buff all my allies too. buffs and arcane strike make up plenty of difference while archery does the rest

Trapfinding? thanks to mummy's mask, i can buy that ability with a trait, before that, there was a set of gloves and 2 2nd level spells that did the same thing. the sift cantrip also lefts me search entire ten foot by 10 foot cubes for traps which basically amounts of 25 squares with one standard action

Scouting? i get stealth and perception as class skills, and well, bardic knowledge helps me identify what i am spotting

Rogue Talents? mostly junk, i don't really need them, a lot of the few good ones are compensated by spells

Social Skills? Versatile Performance not only covers a bunch of social skills, but it takes a lot of the important Dex Based Skills, are basing off charisma. Dance, Act and Oratory is pretty much the best performance combination out there i can think of by level 10. by level 14, if i don't have disable device and sleight of hand already, i ask the DM if i can use perform "puppetry" to accomplish them or retrain skill ranks to puppetry as appropriate. because puppetry is a performance not covered by the rules. effectively allowing me to use my charisma to disable traps.


EvilPaladin wrote:
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **...

Ahhh Ahhh!

Not how I would build a rogue.

Build:
CG Focused Study Human Rogue || 10 18 14 14 10 10 || Acrobatics, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Sleight of Hand, Stealth ||5|| Bluff,Use Magic Device, Perception||3|| Secondary Skills(4); Climb, Diplomacy, Disguise, Linguistics(max -1), Swim(1 rank)
NOTE: FCB in skills, all skills at max except where noted.

Traits: Resilient(+1 fort saves), Indomitable Faith(+1 Will)
1 |Deceitful, Skill Focus(Bluff)
2 |Finesse Rogue
3 |Combat Expertise
4 |Combat Trick(Improved Feint)
5 |Skill Focus(UMD)
6 |Bleeding Attack
7 |Combat Reflexes
8 |Fast Stealth, Skill Focus(Stealth)
9 |Quick Draw
10|Skill Mastery(Bluff, UMD, Stealth, Disguise, Acrobatics)
11|Greater Feint
12|Opportunist
13|Iron Will
14|Crippling Strike
15|Great Fortitude
16|Hard Minded, Skill Focus(Acrobatics)
17|Extra Rogue Talent(Skill Mastery)
18|Defensive Roll
19|Improved Great Fortitude
20|Improved Evasion

Now I'm not going to defend this particular build until I play with it more. But dear lord, I just couldn't stay silent with the rogue getting knee-capped liked that.

Feel free to pick apart this build and call it trash and me a troll. My actual analyses will come later. If you want to go ahead and do your own. Fine. (This last part is not directed at you specifically)


Marthkus wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

Archaeologist is brought up a lot, but it loses versatile performance and therefore the skill advantage. Also lacks sneak attack, which then confuses me as to the value of having rogue talents and advance talents.

Sneak Attack is too situation and easily negated to be a big deal.

That's a conversation for later.

The point is that the archaeologist is invalided as a rogue eclipsing option. There may be points about rogue replacement, but on the whole this archetype is inferior to the base bard when it comes to replacing and eclipsing the rogue.

It's gains in trap-finding are more or less irrelevant with the trapfinding trait and Trapspringer’s Gloves (which is not something the rogue needs in addition to trap-finding to handle traps, I mean this as a point for the bard).

The class is better for the same reason that the ranger is. It does most of what the rogues does either good enough or better than the rogue.

Skill points-The rogue gets 8 and the bard gets six, but the bard can put less points into knowledges because he still gets half his level as a bonus. That allows him to put those skill points into other areas.
With 8 skills a rogue might go with acrobatics, bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, sense motive, disable device, perception, and stealth. Feel free to alter that list as needed.

The archaeologist can skimp on perception and disable device. Remember he gets his bonus to all uses of perception, not just traps.

That leaves them pretty much even for skills. The rogue might have a slight edge, but not much, and when the skills won't do the bard had magic. +20 to bluff means he can skimp on bluff also.

For damage the bard's self buff to damage does not leave him far behind a rogue if he is behind at all. At best the rogue is even.

So at this point the bard is a better scout, a better face, better at knowledges, and rogue is better at, well I don't know. <---Skills

The bard is even or better on damage since his to-hit is higher, and arcane strike provides extra bonus damage.

Where is the rogue ahead again?

edit: Ignore my using of eclipse. What I mean is the bard is better for the party, not that it can always do everything a rogue can do.


wraithstrike wrote:
edit: Ignore my using of eclipse. What I mean is the bard is better for the party, not that it can always do everything a rogue can do.

Thank you for your opinion. This thread isn't about that though. To argue about which class is better, there needs to be a positive argument for the rogue. Which there is not in this thread (much to some people's annoyance).

Anything that appears to be in the rogue's favor is just mechanical statements. Non of that makes any sort of positive claim for the rogue.

For example, suppose the rogue has 100+ skill points per level. That doesn't mean anything if skill points are worthless. Analyzing the value of mechanical "advantages" is an entirely different discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

there is no decent mechanical argument in the rogue's favor, because anything the rogue can specialize in, is usually weaker than something the bard gets or is such a minor tax it is irrelevant.

like the Trap-Finder Trait Produced in January 2014, it opens up a lesser form of Trapfinding to Everybody whom spends a trait. effectively invalidating the last thing the rogue had to call their own short of archetypes and effectively making entire archetypes no longer neccessary because for a trait, a bard can have both Trapfinding and Versatile Performance.

while the trait itself is perfectly fine, due to the fact that everything outperforms the rogue as a party member in some way with the exception of the monk. it is definitely the final nail in the coffin for the rogue, because now, the classes that could emulate a rogue, are no longer required to take a heavily depowering archetype to do so.

this can only really be fixed by making the Rogue a Viable PC class that stands out in it's own unique manner seperate from it's roles in prior editions, in other words, to fix the rogue, requires a re-invention and re-imagining of the rogue beyond, agile and sneaky guy in leather with a knife. in other words, they need to take concepts from the other roguish subclasses and apply them as appropriate, take a little of the assassin, a little of the investigator, a little of the ninja, a little of the sniper, a bit of the navy seal, a little of the duelist and apply the most mythic and cinematic yet thematic aspects.

effectively, make a Rogue Feel Like Altiar from Assassin's Creed or Zorro from who knows how many Zorro Movies, make them feel like Fuhrer Bradley from Full Metal Alchemist, Make them feel like something highly cinematic and highly mythic, make them feel like Loki from Norse Mythology or Black Widow from the Avengers, make them Feel like James Bond don't settle with them merely being the frail weakling in black leather whom stabs wounded things with a knife when the fight is half over, that is an NPC class there. make a Rogue feel truly heroic, that is what the designers need to do. the current sneak attack mechanics do not do this well enough, however, some Dirty Fighting Mechanics would if desired.

at the same time, Update the Visions of the Fighter, Cavalier, Paladin and Monk to something less restrictive for the latter two and something similarly larger than life for all 4.

the designers must realize this and must not continue burying their head in the sand. come 2016, Pathfinder will most likely require a new edition revised to be played by all, where every class feels special and where race does not matter so highly in optimization. one with a more streamlined attribute and skill system that makes every attribute matter instead of making some a free dump, which i suggest could be done by merging wisdom and charisma.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
in other words, they need to take concepts from the other roguish subclasses and apply them as appropriate, take a little of the assassin, a little of the investigator, a little of the ninja, a little of the sniper, a bit of the navy seal, a little of the duelist and apply the most mythic and cinematic yet thematic aspects.

Oddly enough, this is how I see the current rogue. Further playtime is needed to confirm this, but at the moment, what you describe is what I am playing.


Now if the Rogue takes the Rogue Talent and chooses the minor magic talent with Read Magic, wouldn't that basically open up all the Wizard spells (albeit very limited per day) to the Rogue as long as they have the scroll?


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Now if the Rogue takes the Rogue Talent and chooses the minor magic talent with Read Magic, wouldn't that basically open up all the Wizard spells (albeit very limited per day) to the Rogue as long as they have the scroll?

Honestly it doesn't matter whether you have read magic or not. You still have to UMD to use the scroll regardless of whether you read magic or not since you don't have a Wizard Spell list.


Inspire Competence is, in general, going to be a better damage buff than one character having Sneak Attack.
The other Bardic Performance options just add insult to injury here, as Sneak Attack can't do anything else but damage things (most of the time, but not even always).

Versatile Performance means the Bard not only has more skill points per level than the Rogue, but will have more points in roleplay skills and won't be forced into a single skill style.

Jack of All Trades and Spells both provide the same sorts of benefits that Rogue Talents will provide, except far superior mechanically.

Both have high Ref and 3/4 BAB, but the Bard gets to add High Will to his list of toys.

---

The only things that the Rogue has that the Bard can't either outperform, or just totally mimic, are Trapfinding, Trap Sense, Uncanny Dodge, and Evasion.
One Trait fixes the Trapfinding issue, and a single Wonderous Item fixes the Evasion issue.
That leaves Trap Spotting and Uncanny Dodge as the only things that the Rogue can claim that the Bard can't either mimic or outperform.

So can the Bard totally, 100%, eclipse the Rogue? Technically no. But the only way that it doesn't is so minor that it doesn't matter.


Marthkus wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
edit: Ignore my using of eclipse. What I mean is the bard is better for the party, not that it can always do everything a rogue can do.

Thank you for your opinion. This thread isn't about that though. To argue about which class is better, there needs to be a positive argument for the rogue. Which there is not in this thread (much to some people's annoyance).

Anything that appears to be in the rogue's favor is just mechanical statements. Non of that makes any sort of positive claim for the rogue.

For example, suppose the rogue has 100+ skill points per level. That doesn't mean anything if skill points are worthless. Analyzing the value of mechanical "advantages" is an entirely different discussion.

I don't think any class truly makes the rogue 100% obsolete if that is what you are asking others to prove. The common belief is more like, if you want a rogue to do X, Y, and Z why not play _____ because it does those things better and more.


Okay, this is what I personally believe the reason why bard is better than rogue. Possibly because people and GMs having problems in encounters for rogues to use tactic in combat properly like how a real rogue would. Also there would be lack of team work involved. I played an Int based rogue who worn Breastplate very early and trip with guisarme, the barbarian in my team gave his gold to me so I could get it. With bluff skill, I was hardly attacked by anything in early levels. Well rested party hardly have needs for martial characters in later levels, it's because they never run out of spells. Why Wizard is the most power class? Because there will hardly be more than one battle a day. But if people are trying to kill you, will they just come once a day everyday to give you their loots? No, eventually they will realize you guys are amazing at what you do and going to stop you in a mass force. There will be ambush one after an other until you are cornered the to main boss where he will kill you all and no where to run.

Anyway, what makes fighter, monk and rogue weak is they lack the support that deserve.

For fighter, give that ghost touch weapon to the fighter instead of the paladin. Paladin has spell and smite against ghost, fighter don't. Give the fighter a ghost touch weapon will help him add input to the battle. Give it to paladin will only delay that input as you can't attack when you casting a spell and render the fighter useless. It's a waste of resource.

For monk, don't let the sorcerer huge that +8 armor of bracer? Monk with +8 armor of bracer will be much effective in taking done a caster than having the sorcerer with it while she will just throw spells at each others with the enemy's wizard. Why would you need AC if you can cast mirror image and blink anyway? Not like you will need to go in melee like a monk, if you are, you possibly are playing it wrong. (Could be right, but most likely wrong.)

For rogue, can bard fight without magic? Rogue can somewhat still fight with no magic. With in an antimagic field, how long will a bard last when all his performance are supernatural and spell like ability? Also, most rogue talents doesn't have limit amount of use per day. And bard performance does.

Also, bonus type. Monk, rogue and fighter can stack most bonus with their class ability. Some sorcerer will have overlap inheritage bonus to something with some items. And the sorcerer will still want it because the bonus is higher, but never realize the fighter can have it without overlapping. It's more extra bonus to the team overall, not just the character.

Conclusion. What I personally believe makes monk, rogue and fighter great is their reliability. They might deliver so little in every ways compare to other class. But they can do it all day long. What'll happen next when caster run out of spells after the epic battle? After the bard finished all his performance? Paladin out of lay on hands and smite evil? Barbarian with no more rage? Ranger out of arrows? Monk might run out of ki, so yes, he is not as reliable as fighter and rogue. But overall all, when you charging into the castle, rushing your way to the top of the tower just to save that important friend you all care so much about, you need rogue and fighter by yours side.


Neo2151 wrote:
Inspire Competence is, in general, going to be a better damage buff than one character having Sneak Attack.

I doubt that a bonus to skill checks is going to do much damage :P


Yeah, yeah. Inspire Courage. I'm dumb when I'm tired. :P


What a wonderful thread.

Anyway, as everybody knows, the rogue is better than the bard in any conceivable way, for some definition of "better"; I have found a beautiful demonstration of this statement, I will write it in some other thread at some point in the future.


SiuoL wrote:
Conclusion. What I personally believe makes monk, rogue and fighter great is their reliability. They might deliver so little in every ways compare to other class. But they can do it all day long. What'll happen next when caster run out of spells after the epic battle? After the bard finished all his performance? Paladin out of lay on hands and smite evil?

'K

So let's consider a level 10 paladin with 16 Cha. He gets 8 lay of hand, for 5d6 HP each. That's 40d6 HP, ~140 HP.

But what can he do when he's out of lay of hand? It is well-known that any level 10 fighter may fight all day long after he has lost 140 HP; discussing this fact is outside the scope of this thread anyway.


SiuoL wrote:
Conclusion. What I personally believe makes monk, rogue and fighter great is their reliability. They might deliver so little in every ways compare to other class. But they can do it all day long. What'll happen next when caster run out of spells after the epic battle? After the bard finished all his performance? Paladin out of lay on hands and smite evil? Barbarian with no more rage? Ranger out of arrows? Monk might run out of ki, so yes, he is not as reliable as fighter and rogue. But overall all, when you charging into the castle, rushing your way to the top of the tower just to save that important friend you all care so much about, you need rogue and fighter by yours side.

The problem is: Those Guys still run out of Hit Points, which in general often happens before some other ressources are spent. For example a Pathfinder Barabrian has lots of Rage Rounds and fights are pretty short. Lay on Hands will get used up only after the Rogue or the Fighter would have died multiple times already.

Also one Charm Spell can end the combat even for a fully healthy Fighter or Rogue, while most other classes have much better saves.


I3igAl wrote:
SiuoL wrote:
Conclusion. What I personally believe makes monk, rogue and fighter great is their reliability. They might deliver so little in every ways compare to other class. But they can do it all day long. What'll happen next when caster run out of spells after the epic battle? After the bard finished all his performance? Paladin out of lay on hands and smite evil? Barbarian with no more rage? Ranger out of arrows? Monk might run out of ki, so yes, he is not as reliable as fighter and rogue. But overall all, when you charging into the castle, rushing your way to the top of the tower just to save that important friend you all care so much about, you need rogue and fighter by yours side.
The problem is: Those Guys still run out of Hit Points

OK, so I don't particularly agree with the "I can handle 100 encounters" argument, but PCs don't run out of health.

Idk about your groups, but ours use potions and wands to heal out of combat. So no, those classes may run out of HP in fights, but they don't over the course of the day. No one does.

We're even hesitant to use spells because that limits our combat potential.


Marthkus wrote:
We're even hesitant to use spells because that limits our combat potential.

Analyzing how you use your spells is outside the scope of this thread, as well as determining a definition of the term "spell".


SiuoL wrote:
Conclusion. What I personally believe makes monk, rogue and fighter great is their reliability. They might deliver so little in every ways compare to other class. But they can do it all day long. What'll happen next when caster run out of spells after the epic battle? After the bard finished all his performance? Paladin out of lay on hands and smite evil? Barbarian with no more rage? Ranger out of arrows? Monk might run out of ki, so yes, he is not as reliable as fighter and rogue. But overall all, when you charging into the castle, rushing your way to the top of the tower just to save that important friend you all care so much about, you need rogue and fighter by yours side.

Party of Four: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Bard.

It's been a SUPER-taxing adventure day, and all casters are out of spells, Bard is out of Performance Rounds, and Cleric is out of Channels.
The Fighter is, of course, good to go still as you can't run out of Feat uses.

One of two scenarios is going to happen, and I'd like your input on which one you think is more likely:
A) The party keeps going because the Fighter, and only the Fighter, is in "fighting-shape." The other three have no complaints because they know the Fighter can carry them through all future hardships for the day.
-OR-
B) The party finds a spot to rest because 3 out of 4 players have spent all their daily resources (essentially making the Fighter's "strength" useless) and it would be suicide to assume that the Fighter could carry a party of four for any more hostilities.

There's only one right answer to the above.


GâtFromKI wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
We're even hesitant to use spells because that limits our combat potential.

Analyzing how you use your spells is outside the scope of this thread, as well as determining a definition of the term "spell".

What the...

He made a point that wasn't correct.

I also think I know the scope of the thread, thank you very much.

Sovereign Court

Marthkus wrote:

Not how I would build a rogue.

** spoiler omitted **

That is a fiiiiine rogue... mind if I use that build in the future? :)


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

Not how I would build a rogue.

** spoiler omitted **

That is a fiiiiine rogue... mind if I use that build in the future? :)

Go for it.


Marthkus wrote:
He made a point that wasn't correct.

As well as your assumption that you can use wands "out of combat".

The BBEG isn't stupid, so he doesn't send his minion one after another: every opponent is attacking the party at the same time in some giant gangbang, if the PCs survive they're done for the month. It is how it works in actual game, discussing this is outside the scope of this thread.

It's in this very common situation that the rogue shine the most; after 216 rounds of fight, the bard has no more spell nor representations while the rogue continue to flank for a lot damages.

151 to 200 of 549 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why does the bard eclipse the rogue? All Messageboards